CHICAGO -- Monitors watching over efforts of Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America,
Inc. to combat sexual harassment and to obey the Consent Decree which resolved the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) landmark lawsuit against the company reported
today to the Federal District Court in Peoria, Illinois, that: "Mitsubishi is in compliance with the
Decree, has sexual harassment in the plant firmly under control, and has made commendable
progress in improving its systems for preventing such behavior and dealing with it appropriately
when it occurs."

The monitors were appointed by District Judge Joe Billy McDade in the Consent Decree he
entered on June 23, 1998, which brought to an end the largest sexual harassment case in the history
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Decree required Mitsubishi to pay $34 million to
the victims of sexual harassment identified by EEOC, enjoined the company from permitting sexual
harassment or retaliating against women who complain, and required the company to implement
procedures to deal effectively with any harassment which arose in the future. The Decree provided
that the team of three monitors would periodically assess whether the changes required by the
Decree are actually being carried out by Mitsubishi.

"I applaud the job that the Decree monitors are doing and share their cautionary note that
Mitsubishi must not become complacent with their success, but must firmly secure its progress to
ensure a harassment-free work environment well beyond the three-year life of the Decree," said
EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro. "While this report shows that Mitsubishi has made substantial
progress in ridding pervasive sexual harassment from its workplace, the Commission will remain
vigilant in monitoring its employment practices in accordance with the landmark settlement of two
years ago."

The monitors, who submitted their second annual report under the Decree, are Nancy B.
Kreiter, Research Director of Women Employed in Chicago; George F. Galland, Jr., an attorney in
the Chicago law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland; and Joyce E. Tucker, formerly a Commissioner
of EEOC and now a member of the consulting firm of Tucker, Spearman & Associates of
Alexandria, Virginia.

The report says:

"We [the monitors] have had continuous dealing with
[Mitsubishi] management. We have been provided extensive
documentation by the company, including, among many other
subjects, copies of complaints of sexual and sex-based
harassment and related retaliation and the company's reports of
the investigations into and follow-up on those complaints. We
have visited the plant on a number of occasions . . . when we
conducted extensive interviews with plant employees. We
observed the sexual harassment training for associates . . . and
for supervisors."

"Today . . . we remain confident that sexual harassment remains
firmly under control at the plant and that [Mitsubishi] is in
compliance under the Consent Decree."

The report continues:

"Despite the fact that we believe that very little sexual
harassment is occurring at the plant, and that sexual harassment
is dealt with appropriately when brought to management's
attention, as a result of increased responsibilities and the
increased scope of [line supervisors'] duties, we have some
concern . . . The company cannot let down its guard in the
control of harassment, which requires vigilance. . ."

"The challenge for [Mitsubishi] now is to institutionalize these
systems [for preventing and dealing with sexual harassment] so that
when the Decree expires a year from now, the company can
continue the significant progress it has made."

John C. Hendrickson, Regional Attorney in EEOC's Chicago District Office and lead
counsel for the government in the Mitsubishi case, said, "The test of success for EEOC in the
Mitsubishi case has always been comparable to the two-sides of a coin. On one side was monetary
relief to compensate for the harm done in the past. Thirty-four million dollars is the most ever in a
sexual harassment case and surely counts as a major success. On the other side -- equally
important is putting a stop to sexual harassment in the workplace itself, making a concrete
change for the employees of today and tomorrow. The monitors are telling us that this kind of
change is a reality at Mitsubishi. That, I believe, means that EEOC has had a real success here."

Hendrickson said that EEOC believed the experience of the monitors and the way they
worked under the Consent Decree was particularly significant. "This is not, as I have said before, a
blue-ribbon panel designed to conduct drive-by inspections and issue once-over-lightly reports
which go nowhere and say nothing. Under this Consent Decree, the monitors all of whom have
distinguished real-world records were expected to dig in at the plant, spend time there, and assess
what is actually going on."

"Their report," Henrickson added, "including its recommendations for further improvement,
shows they have been doing their job. More than that, it shows that this kind of monitoring
process can be an efficient and effective way for both EEOC and employers to get on top of the
most difficult problems of employment discrimination."

John P. Rowe, EEOC District Director in Chicago, said, "It is always fair to ask of us at
EEOC whether what we are doing makes a difference. What we are learning from the Consent
Decree monitors is very positive. Not only have women who suffered from sexual harassment been
provided relief, but their sisters and daughters who go into jobs at Mitsubishi today and tomorrow
will be going into a very different workplace. Under the impetus of the Consent Decree and the
guidance of the monitors, the company appears to have made a real change for the better. That is
making a difference."

EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits
employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local
governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal
government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the
Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.